Shock Me if You Can

By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER

A hundred years after “Rite of Spring” sparked an uproar in Paris, shock has grown mainstream, raising a question: Can art still shock today?

Shocker Cools Into a ‘Rite’ of Passage

By RICHARD TARUSKIN

“The Rite of Spring,” Igor Stravinsky’s ballet that celebrates human sacrifice, is widely praised today but was a flop when it was first produced, in Paris in 1913.

Balanchine’s Enduring Pact With Stravinsky

By ALASTAIR MACAULAY

New York City Ballet is opening its fall season with two weeks of ballets choreographed to the music of Igor Stravinsky.

———————————————————————

TOP NEW YORK TIMES NEWS

U.S. Is Preparing for a Long Siege of Arab Unrest

By PETER BAKER and MARK LANDLER

The White House is girding itself for an extended period of turmoil that will test the security of American diplomatic missions and President Obama’s ability to shape the forces of change in the Arab world.

—

Op-Ed Columnist

It’s Not About the Video

By ROSS DOUTHAT

The unrest in the Islamic world is more about power politics than blasphemy.

• Columnist Page | Blog

—

A U.S. Envoy Who Plunged Into Arab Life

By STEVEN ERLANGER

J. Christopher Stevens, who was killed at a diplomatic mission in Libya, had an affection for Arab culture and street life that made him many friends and contacts.

—————————————————————-

Google Has No Plans to Rethink Video Status

By CLAIRE CAIN MILLER

Google said it would not comply with a White House request to reconsider the anti-Islam video that has set off violent protests, saying it did not violate its terms of service regarding hate speech.

• As Violence Spreads, Google Blocks Access to Inflammatory Video

—————————————————————

Cultural Landscape and Archaeological Remains of the Bamiyan Valley
UNESCO World Heritage Site
The taller of the two Buddhas of Bamiyan in 1976 They were dynamited and destroyed in March 2001 by the Taliban, on orders from leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, after the Taliban government declared that they were “idols.”

—————————————————

And 2012 – ongoing in Timbuktu, Mali:

Islamists destroy century-old religious monuments in Timbuktu Al Qaeda-linked Mali Islamists armed with Kalashnikovs and pick-axes destroyed centuries-old mausoleums of saints in the UNESCO-listed city of Timbuktu on Saturday in front of shocked locals, witnesses said. The Islamist Ansar Dine group backs strict sharia, Islamic law, and considers the shrines of the local Sufi version of Islam to be idolatrous. Sufi shrines have also been attacked by hardline Salafists in Egypt and Libyain the past year. The attack came just days after UNESCO placed Timbuktu on its list of heritage sites in danger and will recall the 2001 dynamiting by the Taliban of two 6th-century statues of Buddha carved into a cliff in Bamiyan in central Afghanistan. “They are armed and have surrounded the sites with pick-up trucks. The population is just looking on helplessly,” local journalist Yeya Tandina said by telephone. Tandina and other witnesses said Ansar Dine had already destroyed the mausoleums of three local saints – Sidi Mahmoud, Sidi El Mokhtar, and Alfa Moya – and at least seven tombs. “The mausoleum doesn’t exist any more and the cemetery is as bare as a soccer pitch,” local teacher Abdoulaye Boulahi said of the Mahmoud burial place. “There’s about 30 of them breaking everything up with pick-axes and hoes. They’ve put their Kalashnikovs down by their side. These are shocking scenes for the people in Timbuktu,” said Boulahi. Contacted late on Saturday, Tandina said Ansar Dine had halted the attacks on the holy site. Attempts to contact members of the group were unsuccessful. Locals said the attackers had threatened to destroy all of the 16 main mausolem sites by the end of the day. UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova called for an immediate halt. “There is no justification for such wanton destruction and I call on all parties engaged in the conflict to stop these terrible and irreversible acts,” she said in a statement. The sites date from Timbuktu’s Golden Age in the 16th century. France’s Foreign Ministry condemned the attacks on what it called “a part of the soul of this prestigious Sahelian city.” Ansar Dine has gained the upper hand over less well-armed Tuareg-led separatists since the two joined forces to rout government troops and seize control in April of the northern two-thirds of the inland West African state. Salt, Slaves, Gold, and Learning Located on an old Saharan trading route that saw salt from the Arab north exchanged for gold and slaves from black Africa to the south, Timbuktu blossomed in the 16th century as an Islamic seat of learning, home to priests, scribes, and jurists. Mali had in recent years sought to create a desert tourism industry around Timbuktu but even before April’s rebellion many tourists were being discouraged by a spate of kidnappings of Westerners in the region claimed by Al Qaeda-linked groups. UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee said this week it had accepted the request of the Malian government to place Timbuktu on its list of endangered heritage sites. “The Committee … also asked Mali’s neighbours to do all in their power to prevent the trafficking in cultural objects from these sites,” it said of the risk of looting. The rebel seizure of the north came as the southern capital, Bamako, was struggling with the aftermath of a March 22 coup. Mali’s neighbors are seeking UN backing for a military intervention to stabilize the country but Security Council members say they need more details on the mission being planned.

If you ask “what are the real threats to our security today,” said Lester Brown of The Earth Policy Institute, “at the top of the list would be climate change, population growth, water shortages, rising food prices and the number of failing states in the world.

As that list grows, how many failed states before we have a failing global civilization, and everything begins to unravel?”

Hopefully, we won’t go there. But, then -

we should all remember that quote attributed to Leon Trotsky: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”   —- Well, you may not be interested in climate change, but climate change is interested in you.

Folks, this is not a hoax. We and the Arabs need to figure out — and fast — more ways to partner to mitigate the environmental threats where we can and to build greater resiliency against those where we can’t. Twenty years from now, this could be all that we’re talking about.

Please go to the link for a very interesting article that tells us that the Arab Spring did happen in part because of the lack of attention to climate change on the part of government officials that were racking it all in to themselves – those official rapists of their countries.

Thomas Friedman is not the only one asking why Arab Spring now, and why the Arab World has not produced any democracies like other Islamic Countries – non-Arabs – actually did. Why is there no Arab State like Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia, or Bangladesh? This last version of the Question was posed by Fareed Zakaria on today’s CNN/GPS show.

Seemingly – all Arab States that are within the huge North-Africa Middle-East area of the Arab conquests in the 12th and 13th Centuries have no real Civil Society. In all these States the economy is run by the people of the ruling Monarchy or by those close to the Government.
The people as such were kept low by an alliance of the rulers with the heads of the religion and the goal of this alliance was to fight another religious group – and here comes in the military that is completely loyal to the ruling power that is also the economy’s leader. This kind of socio-economic system did neither allow for the development of a meaningful Civil Society, nor a really forward looking Middle Class.

To above obervation by Fareed Zakaria we see the add-on by Thomas Friedman:  “The Arab awakening was driven not only by political and economic stresses, but, less visibly, by environmental, population and climate stresses as well. If we focus only on the former and not the latter, we will never be able to help stabilize these societies.”

Thomas Friedman tells us of draught in Syria and North Africa and how this draught pushed the societal lid and was part of the reason for this present day upheaval.

And a Warning – 12 of the world’s 15 most water-scarce countries — Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain, Israel and Palestine — are in the Middle East, and after three decades of explosive population growth these countries are “set to dramatically worsen their predicament.

Then think also about the observatio – “Alot more mouths to feed with less water than ever. As Lester Brown, the president of the Earth Policy Institute and author of “World on the Edge,” notes, 20 years ago, using oil-drilling technology, the Saudis tapped into an aquifer far below the desert to produce irrigated wheat, making themselves self-sufficient. But now almost all that water is gone, and Saudi wheat production is, too. So the Saudis are investing in farm land in Ethiopia and Sudan, but that means they will draw more Nile water for irrigation away from Egypt, whose agriculture-rich Nile Delta is already vulnerable to any sea level rise and saltwater intrusion.

The Link to Thomas Friedman:  www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-other-arab-spring.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120408

by Thomas Fuchs

The Other Arab Spring.

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Published in The New York Times  April 7, 2012 as an OP-ED Column.

ISN’T it interesting that the Arab awakening began in Tunisia with a fruit vendor who was harassed by police for not having a permit to sell food — just at the moment when world food prices hit record highs? And that it began in Syria with farmers in the southern village of Dara’a, who were demanding the right to buy and sell land near the border, without having to get permission from corrupt security officials? And that it was spurred on in Yemen — the first country in the world expected to run out of water — by a list of grievances against an incompetent government, among the biggest of which was that top officials were digging water wells in their own backyards at a time when the government was supposed to be preventing such water wildcatting? As Abdelsalam Razzaz, the minister of water in Yemen’s new government, told Reuters last week: “The officials themselves have traditionally been the most aggressive well diggers. Nearly every minister had a well dug in his house.”

In the Maldives,  an Islands-State former monarchy, that was a late convert to Islam (only 12th century while Indian sub-continent regions already had Muslims 500 years earlier, it was Arab merchant-seafarers   that converted the last Buddhist king of the Maldives), a republic since 1965, and after the totalitarian rules of Presidents Ibrahim Nasir and Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, a true  democracy was established in rather clean elections in 2008, it existed only for three and a half years, and was ended by a coup January 2012.

Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik, the new ruler, was sworn in as President of the Maldives on 7 February 2012, in connection to the forced resignation of President Nasheed amidst weeks of protests and demonstrations led by local police dissidents who supposedly opposed Nasheed’s 16 January order for the military to arrest Abdulla Mohamed, the Chief Justice of the Criminal Court. Dr. Waheed came out against the arrest order and supported the opposition that forced Mohamed Nasheed to resign by telling him that if he resigns there will be no further violence. Nevertheless, since then prisons for the opposition have been reopened, and Mr. Nasheed claims that it is a return to the Gayoom – Nasir competition days when Nasheed himself was imprisoned.

It seems that  economic issues are behind the upheaval, and as we heard from Mr. Nasheed he proposes that the US and India recognized Mr. Waheed in an attempt to acknowledge a new status quo that they like.

We bring this up here because of Mr. Nasheed’s global fame as supporter of  global action to halt climate change which obviously pitted him against fossil fuels interests – world-wide but pin-pointed against the Arab Oil-States as well.

Interesting that there is now talk of building a coal fired power plant, like in India, while under Nasheed there was an effort to go for renewable energy – solar and wind power – in these blue paradise islands still blessed with clean air and clean water and open for tourism.

Mr. Nasheed predicts that by 2030 16 of the Maldive Islands will go under if the world continues on the path of business as usual – “we always can relocate as persons but not as a civilization,” he says.

Mr. Nasheed, post-Copenhagen meeting of 2009, where he became a global leader just one year after taking office in his own State, back home arranged for his cabinet to have an “under-water” government cabinet meeting for the sake of the global media. This is part of the documentary film ‘The Island President’ that was released this week in New York City, and the film tour brought him also to a Columbia University event where he met students including backers of his from 2009. Mr. Nasheed, when asked about the road to RIO+20 said that the UN cannot do it because they will pick always the lowest common denominator among Nations – and this is not enough.

He said that in the end the US will have to act it alone like Germany started to do it. To my question about a government’s responsibility to protect its citizens he answered that the Maldive military behind the coup is interested in business projects and not in the future of the islands. His interest is in replenishing coral reefs and fish stock.

ON POLITICS IN GENERAL MR. NASHEED REMARKED THAT IT IS EASY TO REMOVE A DICTATOR BUT NOT TO FLUSH OUT HUNDREDS OF YEARS OF THE OLD SYSTEM. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE MALDIVES IS WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE MIDDLE EAST, he said. THE COME-BACK OF DICTATORSHIP MUST BE AVOIDED, he said.

Now that brings me to the major part of this posting  which deals with a major full day event at the New York based Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) cooperative effort with the St. Antony’s College, University of Oxford and the Conservative Middle East Council (MEC) of the UK.

The Event started in the evening of Thursday March 29th with the introductory “THE ARAB UPRISING: HOW DID WE GET HERE?” presented by Professor Margaret MacMillan, Warden, St.Antony’s College and Professor of History, University of Toronto. Her full presentation can be found on the website of the CFR as are all other presentations of this meeting.     I must confess that I did not stay for the presentation because I left before Professor MacMillan started as I wanted to listen across town to Mr. Nasheed. This cost me dearly the following day, when at lunch I did not recognize Professor MacMillan who sat at my table and I stated my point of view that we are forced to deal with the Arab World, that we created, by our insistence to make them our oil suppliers. I also said that there are no US National interests in Foreign Policy except for Oil Interests – and I was rebuked strongly – in an effort to put me back in my place. Now I say that I deserved it as I did not know what she said the evening before the full meeting. Also, as my history of the Middle East starts with the 1945 Roosevelt-Churchill-Stalin meeting at Yalta, the stop at Port Said on the way home, and President Roosevelt striking the deal with King Ibn Saud, I did not know that after finishing her book on the causes that led to World War I, Professor MacMillan turns to the resulting  WWII new world order as established at Yalta -
I promise herewith to be an anxious reader when her book is released by the publisher.

Had the oil-men of Texas not told President Roosevelt that the US oil reserves are not sufficient to fight again a war of liberation in Europe, then I felt Yalta’s division of the World that gave the Soviets East Europe, Britain Iran, and the US Saudi Arabia, might not have taken place, and global warfare may have evolved differently – perhaps not the cold way.

—

Friday, March 30, 2012 the  CFR Conference sessions were: (1) Prospects for Democracy,  (2) Monarchies,  (3) Islam and Politics, (4) Regional Consequences – The Geopolitics of the Changing Middle East, (5)  Policy Responses for the United States and Europe.

It was clear that the pre-lunch three panels were intended to provide the background for the after-lunch two up-date panels about the changing Middle East and the place of the non-Arab States of the larger Middle East – specifically Turkey, Israel and Iran. Interesting, in the morning sessions were present also Ambassadors of Arab States – I did not see them in the afternoon. Did their presence in the morning session somehow make for reduced forwardness on the part of the speakers? I did not hear the word oil from the speakers while the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the UN was present, neither were there complete answers to questions. Nevertheless, the picture came out clearly thanks also to the ample time allowed for questions.

Going to the last two sessions first – let us say that Turkey is now a main player in the Arab Middle East.

The November 3, 2002 elections in Turkey brought a landslide victory for the Justice and Development Party (AKP) – a party with an Islamic pedigree – which received almost two-thirds’ of the parliamentary seats with 34.2 percent of the vote.

These elections ushered in a major realignment of the Turkish political landscape, bringing in the AKP —  winning 363 of the 550 seats in the Turkish parliament. Of the eighteen parties running in the elections, the social democrat Republican People’s Party (CHP) was the only other party to win parliamentary representation, garnering 19.4 percent of the vote and 178 seats (the remaining 9 seats went to independent candidates).

On the other hand, the major parties that ran the country in the 1990s, the center-left Democratic Left Party (DSP) of outgoing Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit, the Nationalist Action Party (MHP), and former President Turgut Ozal’s centrist Motherland Party (ANAP) failed to pass the ten percent threshold needed to enter the parliament. Islamist opposition Felicity (previously Welfare) Party (SP), and former Prime Minister Tansu Ciller’s center-right True Path Party (DYP) were also unsuccessful in winning representation in the parliament.

Looking back at material from 2002 I found:

Although the AKP is an offshoot of the Islamist Welfare Party (RP), which was banned in 1997 for Islamist activities, the electorate sees the party as a new force and not necessarily Islamist.

Various secular parties, courts, media outlets, and nongovernmental organizations view the party with suspicion due to its leaders’ past affiliation with RP. Yet, AKP’s moderate, non-confrontational rhetoric over the last year has made it attractive to a diverse array of voters ranging from Islamists to rural nationalists and moderate urban voters.

A second factor explaining AKP’s success is that the party has been able to channel some of the profound anger that characterized the November 3 elections.

AKP appealed to middle and working class voters, who were unsatisfied with the economic plans of the outgoing government that were backed by the International Monetary Fund. Such anger in Turkey has traditionally been concentrated at the lower ends of the socioeconomic spectrum. After the February 2001 economic meltdown, however, even the middle classes became angry.

Accordingly, AKP attracted many moderate urban voters, who were appalled by the inefficient and corruption-ridden governments of the 1990s, as well as by the political instability and economic downturns that characterized this decade. Many voters turned to AKP, which marketed itself as new and untainted by the legacy of the 1990s. AKP promised to deliver growth and stability, as in the Turgut Ozal years of the 1980s, a decade to which most Turks now look back with nostalgia.

What above evaluation did not say in 2002 is that many Turks were hurt by the way the EU did not accept Turkey for its membership, and these Turks decided to retreat to what they consider closer to Turkey’s background – away from European secularism back to Islamic heritage of the Arab Middle East or  Central Asia. That is how AKP leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan looked at making common cause with the Arab Middle East/North Africa. With Egypt – the Central State that sits on the Suez Canal – facing problems – Turkey is now the natural leader of this potential bloc.  Only Saudi Arabia has the possibility to interfere, and that was settled by now with having a Turk as head of the Saudi Arabia based OIC ( Organization of Islamic Cooperation.) So Turkey plays to win. I tried to introduce this as a question but it was not picked up.

Israel seemingly played to lose. With the role of the Global powers playing in the region being diminished, the Israelis did not move ahead to recognize an opportunity to welcome the regimes that are borne in the ashes of the Arab Spring. The Israelis saw only the potential dangers and ignored any possible benefits from the Arab Spring. This because Israel, perhaps by necessity, regarded itself as belonging to the West and ignored the possibility to belong to the neighborhood of the East. Real Politik was the relationship with the winter dictators for regional Security, and for their own security. Mubarak was the enforcer of an unpopular Sadat agreement that favored Israel, and Israel was ready to shelter Mubarak before his forced resignation.

The Syrian revolution is about Syria and not about Israel – but the occupied territories cloud is in the background. Egypt cooperated with Israel in blocking Gaza, the Turks opposed this – so the Turks are now the big winners Marwa Daoudy from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, and Avi Schlain, Emeritus Fellow at St Antony College, U. of Oxford, agree that it was not a bright idea for Ehud Barak saying that Israel is a “Villa in the Jungle” – this did not leave much hope for rapprochement.

In Egypt it is now about “National Dignity” and the perception that Mubarak was an Israeli stugge – when the revolution started the military and government crushed CDs and shreded government documents – we will never know the truth.

Syria started out in as a democracy but a 1949 coup by the CIA ended this.  Nasser talked about Positive Neutralism” in order to get money from all sides, but I did not get a full answer about the fate of Nasserism that was Pan-Arabism.
The short answer was that people in the Arab States worry about their own condition and not InterArabism.

The consensus after this panel was that if the Arabs don’t want us there – the best we can do is step out.

For the future – Hamas is now residing in Egypt and after listening to Egypt in forming a National Government, the Palestinians will be able to declare a cease fire with Israel and push for negotiations. The Egyptians will continue the agreements with Israel but declare they will not repeat the mistake of being one sided in favor of Israel.

The Last panel was about Policy Responses for the United States and Europe and here the cat came out from hiding, and it was that the war in Libya was easy for the West because it promised large riches of Oil – and as always, those that get involved will also bring in their oil corporations in tow. Eugene Rogan of St. Antony said YES-BUT – in Libya case it was also a military consideration because we (the US) could not afford another Sarajevo. Yes, but what about Syria? All right – they do not have oil in such quantities. So What?

Gideon Rose, Editor Foreign Affairs, said Reve Back the rhetoric or Increase Policy? We must make clear what kind of friends we are and what red lines we have. We should not be ashamed of promoting democracy added Robert Danin the Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow for Middle East and Africa Studies. He continued – it has to be indigenous and we should be able to support it via institutions like Freedom House.

There is a lot of Unemployment and Underemployment in the Arab lands, and there is a lot of money in the Gulf States. Things went worse during this last year of upheaval. The extreme haves must support the extreme have-nots in the region he said. I told myself that this will be the day.

Asked what are the three major problems in the White House after November? The Answer was Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia

Eugene Rogan, Faculty Fellow and University Lecturer in the Modern History of the Middle East, St. Antony, addressing the UN, said that the Kofi Annan Moral Mission to Syria has no chance to succeed. What is needed is a UNIFIL operation to make space between the fighting sides in Syria. Only then can start negotiations.

Other speakers included:

Elliott Abrams from CFR and Michael J. Willis from St. Antony on PROSPECTS FOR DEMOCRACY — James M. Lindsay, Director of Studies at CFR – presider of that panel;

Mohamad Bazzi, CFR and NYU, and Columnist Raghida Dergham as Presider at the panel on MONARCHIES.

Isobel Coleman of CFR, Ed Husain of CFR, and Michael J. Willis of St Antony with Deborah J. Amos of National Public Radio on the panel on ISLAM AND POLITICS.

One last comment – The Monarchies fared better then the secular Dictatorships because they have some sort of legitimacy. On the other hand, the secular politicians were viewed as corrupt thieves and treated accordingly when people decided finally to hit the streets.

The article mentioned names:

Champion was Hosni Mubarak of Egypt who stashed away in his family foreign accounts during his 30 years of Government Service – a neat amount of $70 Billion.
He is followed by the Gaddafis of Libya who needed all of 42 years in order to stash away only $60 Billion.

The list of the first 10 highest  Kleptomaniac African Heads of State is rounded up in the following order:

#3  - Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe                 — $10  Billion.

#4  -  Hassan al-Bashir of Sudan                         –    $9 Billion

#5  -  Mobutu Sese Seko of the DR of Congo – $5 Billion

#6  -  Sani Abacha of Nigeria                                    - $5 Billion

#7  -  Zine Ben Ali of Tunesia                                   – $5 Billion

#8  -  Yoweri Museveni of Uganda                      - $4 Billion

#9  -  Charles Taylor of Liberia                             –  $3 Billion

#10 –  Omar Bongo of Gabon                                   –  $2 Billion

These evaluations are backed by the British All Party Parliamentary Group and by the Washington Global Financial Integrity GFI Group.

We were amazed by the Washington Post article that that feels rather the pain of Steve Jobs’ family. Steve indeed was the person whose life-time technical achievements made a tremendous impact in our lives and made this year’s protests possible by giving also to the lower middle class, and even to the developing countries poor, a technical means to communicate among themselves and with the outside world. But, nevertheless, it is all those young people, and even the not so young, who stood up and said that the way the 1% have turned from bulls to pigs – is just not acceptable anymore – these are the rightful choice for the most influential people this year.

—–

At Tahrir Square, victory signs and a massive crowd, 02/01/11. (photo: Carolyn Cole/LAT)

The Time Magazine article - www.readersupportednews.org/opini… speaks mainly of events that started in Tunisia and Egypt – The Tahrir Square Arab Spring Awakening. Anyway it is the wind from these protests that grew into local storms that also reached far shores in areas where the injustice was of a different kind. We believe that it was the latter that moved THE TIME editors to recognize the prior events.

—–

———————–

Nevertheless, in respect to Steve Jobs, please see also the Washington Post article that tells us that our understanding of the target The Time editors had in mind is rather what the Washington Post article also had in mind.

Why Steve Jobs isn’t Time’s Person of the Year.

Jobs, however, was not even a contender for the magazine’s cover.

Time managing editor Rick Stengel told the anchors of the “Today” show Wednesday that the award isn’t a “lifetime achievement award.”

Jobs had a somewhat rocky history with the magazine, as detailed in the authorized biography of the Apple co-founder released shortly after his death. Jobs believed that he was being profiled to be the Man of the Year in 1982, only to find when the magazine published that Time had run a harsh portrait of the then 27-year-old executive and chosen to honor the personal computer as “Machine of the Year” instead.

“They FedExed me the magazine, and I remember opening the package, thoroughly expecting to see my mug on the cover, and it was this computer sculpture thing.” Jobs told biographer Walter Isaacson, who used to be a Time magazine journalist. “I thought, ‘Huh?’ And then I read the article, and it was so awful that I actually cried.”

Jobs is not overlooked in the latest issue, however, getting a (very touching) write-up in the magazine’s “Fond Farewells” section,penned by Pixar head John Lasseter.

“I thought of Steve almost as a brother, and he never ceased to amaze me,” Lasseter wrote. “He knew that his products and technology could improve people’s lives.”

Related stories:

Walter Isaacson’s ‘Steve Jobs’ biography shows Apple co-founder’s genius, flaws

Original Apple contract fetches $1.6M at auction

Steve Jobs’s last words: ‘Oh wow. Oh wow. Oh wow.’

Bahrain Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid bin Ahmed al-Khalifa and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Clinton urges Saudi, Bahrain to embrace Arab Spring.

By Bloomberg, Tuesday, 8 November 2011.
 www.arabianbusiness.com/clinton-u…

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying that the US has a role in democracy movements that continue to roil the Middle East, urged Saudi Arabia and Bahrain to embrace reform and Syria to accept protesters’ demands.

“These revolutions are not ours – they are not by us, for us, or against us, but we do have a role,” Clinton said in remarks to the National Democratic Institute, a democracy support organization based in Washington. “Fundamentally, there is a right side of history. We want to be on it. And without exception, we want our partners in the region to reform so that they are on it as well.”

—

Clinton addressed skepticism in both the Arab world and at home about US motives and commitments since the Arab Spring began with a Tunisian fruit vendor’s protest self-immolation in December 2010.

Developments in the months since then have raised the possibility of Islamic groups gaining political power in Egypt, highlighted differences in the way the US has approached protest movements in places like Bahrain and Syria and drawn questions about US opposition to unilateral Palestinian attempts to gain recognition.

While there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach to democracy in the Arab world, such a movement is firmly in US interests and is a strategic necessity, Clinton declared.

—

“The greatest single source of instability in today’s Middle East is not the demand for change,” she said, “It is the refusal to change.”

Clinton said that held true for allies as well as others. She warned that, if the most powerful political force in Egypt remains a roomful of unelected officials, there will be future unrest.

She decried Iranian hypocrisy, saying that contrary to its claims to support democracy abroad, the gulf between rulers and the ruled is greater in Iran than anywhere else in the region. Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and others “trying to hold back the future at the point of a gun should know their days are numbered,” Clinton said.

To the king of Bahrain, where the US Fifth Fleet is based as a bulwark against Iranian aggression in the Gulf, Clinton said that reform was in the kingdom’s interest.

Officials there have used mass arrests to counter protests by majority Shiites demanding greater rights in the Sunni-led nation. Members of Congress have demanded an inquiry into human rights abuses before a planned arms sale to the kingdom goes through.

—

The US will hold Bahrain to its commitments to allow peaceful protest and release political prisoners, Clinton said.

While reforms and equality are “in Bahrain’s interests, in the region’s interest and in ours,” Clinton said, “endless unrest benefits Iran.”

—

Palestinians also “deserve dignity, liberty and the right to decide their own future,” Clinton said. The only way to achieve that is through negotiations with Israel, Clinton said.

—

The Middle East’s protest movements may bring to power groups and parties that the US disagrees with, Clinton acknowledged. She said she is asked about this most often in the context of Islamic political parties. “The suggestion that faithful Muslims cannot thrive in a democracy is insulting, dangerous and wrong,” she said.

—

While “reasonable people can disagree on a lot,” Clinton said the crucial factor will be adherence to basic democratic principles. Parties must reject violence, abide by the rule of law and respect freedom of speech, association and assembly, as well as the rights of women and minorities, she said. “In other words, what parties call themselves is less important than what they do,” Clinton said.

The US has the resources, capabilities and expertise to support those trying to make the transition to democracy, Clinton said. Groups like National Democratic Institute can help with the nuts and bolts of democracy, teaching people how to form a political party, how to ensure women participate in government and how to foster civil society.

Mindful of the economic roots of the unrest, the Obama administration is also promoting trade, investment and regional integration, Clinton said.

“With so much that can go wrong and so much that can go right, support for emerging Arab democracies is an investment we can’t afford not to make,” she said.

.

Suha is known for her extravagant lifestyle among the elite in Paris prior to her husband’s death. Media outlets often speculated that the late Palestinian leader’s wife was enjoying the fruits of the Palestinians’ labor, as Arafat was widely accused of pocketing funds and aid money meant for the Palestinian people.

Suha had her Tunisian citizenship revoked by former President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali in 2007. Foreign media reported multiple possible motives for the rescindment, among them a secret marriage with the former first lady’s brother gone awry, embarrassing requests for money from late Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, and bickering over profits from the International School of Carthage.

October 29, 2011

A View from the Villa.

THE KILLING of Muammar Gaddafi and his son Muatasim was not a pretty sight. After seeing it once, I looked away when it was shown again and again on TV – literally ad nauseam.

Commercial TV exists, of course, to make money for the tycoons by appealing to the basest instincts and tastes of the masses. There seems to be an insatiable appetite for gruesome sights.

But in Israel there was another motive for showing these lynch scenes repeatedly, as the commentators made abundantly clear. These scenes proved, to their mind, the primitive, barbaric, murderous nature of the Arab peoples, and, indeed, of Islam as such.

Ehud Barak likes to describe Israel as a “villa in the middle of a jungle”. By now this is accepted by the great majority of our media people. They never miss an opportunity to point out that we live in a “dangerous neighborhood” – making it clear that Israel does not really belong to this neighborhood. We are a civilized Western people, sadly surrounded by these primitive savages.

(As I have mentioned many times, this goes right back to the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, who wrote that the future Zionist state would be a part of “the wall of civilization against Asiatic barbarism”.)

Since this attitude has far-reaching mental and political implications, let’s have a closer look.

I AM against the death penalty, in all its forms. Executions, whether in Texas or in China, disgust me. I would have much preferred Gaddafi to be tried in a proper court.

But my first reaction to the sight was: My God, how much a people must hate its ruler if they treat him like that! Obviously, the decades of abominable terror inflicted on the Libyan people by this half-crazy despot have destroyed any remnants of mercy they may have felt. (His fanatical defenders to the last, members of his tribe, seem to be a tiny minority.)

His clownish appearance and foreign adventures diverted the attention of world opinion from the murderous aspects of his rule. From time to time, on a whim, he let loose waves of horror, torturing and killing anyone who had so much as voiced a hint of criticism, trying them in football stadiums, where the roar of the maddened crowds drowned out the pitiful pleading for mercy of the condemned. On one occasion, his thugs shot all the 1200 inmates of Abu Salim prison in Tripoli.

True, he spent some money on building schools and hospitals, but that was a tiny part of the huge amounts of oil revenue squandered on his bizarre adventures or stolen by his family. This immensely rich country has a poor population, a singe narrow road from Egypt through to Tunisia and a standard of living that is a third of ours.

You did not have to be an Arab barbarian or Muslim arch-terrorist to do what was done to him. Actually, the highly civilized Italians (Libya’s former colonial masters) did exactly the same in 1945. When the partisans caught the fleeing Benito Mussolini, he pleaded piteously for his life, but they killed him on the spot together with his mistress. Their bodies were thrown into the street, kicked and spat upon by the crowd, and then hanged by their feet from meat hooks from the roof of a gas station, where the public threw stones at them for days on end. I don’t remember anybody in civilized Europe protesting.

Contrary to Mussolini and Gaddafi, Adolf Hitler was not caught while ignominiously trying to escape. He chose a much more dignified exit. But during his last weeks Gaddafi rather resembled Hitler, living in a world of crazy delusion, moving nonexistent troops around on the map, sure to the end of the boundless love of his people.

Nicolae Ceausescu, another bloody tyrant, had his day – or hour – in court. It was a charade, as such trials are bound to be. The kangaroo court condemned him to death and he was shot forthwith, together with his wife.

GADDAFI’S DEMISE puts an end to the debate that started months ago.

There can be no doubt any more that the vast majority of the Libyan people detested Gaddafi and welcomed the NATO campaign that helped to remove him. It was an important contribution, but the actual heavy fighting was done by the ragtag people’s army. Libya liberated itself. Even in Tripoli, it was the people who put an end to the tyranny.

I was sharply attacked by some well-meaning European leftists for blessing the awful monster called NATO. Now, in retrospect, it is quite obvious that the overwhelming – if not unanimous – opinion of the Libyans themselves welcomed the intervention.

Where did I differ from these leftists? I think that they have sewn themselves into a kind of ideological straightjacket. During the Vietnam war they arrived at a world view that was appropriate for that particular situation: there were good guys and bad guys. The good guys were the Vietnamese Communists and their allies. The bad guys were the US and its puppets. Since then, they have applied this schema to every situation around the world: South Africa, Yugoslavia, Palestine.

But every situation is different. Vietnam is not Libya, the South African problem was much more simple than ours. Great power politics may remain constant, and very unattractive at that, but there are huge differences between the various situations. I was very much against the US wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, and very much in favor of the NATO campaigns in Kosovo and Libya.

For me, the starting point of every analysis is what the people concerned want and need, and only after that do I wonder how the international schema applies to them. Working from the inside out, so to speak, not from the outside in.

Also, I have never quite understood the dogma which seems to answer all questions: “it’s all about oil”. Gaddafi sold his oil on the world market, and so will his successors, on the same terms. International oil corporations are all the same to me. Is there much of a difference between the Russian Gazprom and the American Esso?

Some former Communists seem to have a kind of inherited attachment to Russia, almost automatically supporting its international positions, from Afghanistan to Serbia to Syria. Why? What is the similarity between Vladimir Putin and the Soviets? Putin does not subscribe to the dictatorship of the proletariat, he is quite satisfied with a dictatorship of himself.

IF GADDAFI’S savage end has reinforced all the Islamophobic obsessions in the West, the elections in Tunisia have made matters worse.

Help! The Islamists have won the elections! The Muslim Brotherhood will win the elections in Egypt! The Arab Spring will turn the whole region into one vast hotbed of Jihad! Israel and The West are in mortal danger!

This is all nonsense. And dangerous nonsense at that, because it may derail any sensible American and European policy towards the Arab world.

Sure, Islam is on the rise. Islamic parties have resisted the Arab dictatorships and were persecuted by them, and therefore are popular in the aftermath of their downfall – much as European Communists were very popular in France and Italy after the defeat of Fascism. From there on, support for these parties declined.

Islam is an important part of Arab civilization. Many Arabs are sincere believers. Islamic parties will certainly play an important role in any democratic Arab order, much as Jewish religious parties play – alas – an important role in Israeli politics. Most of these Arab parties are moderate, like the governing Islamic party in Turkey.

It is certainly desirable that these parties become a part of the democratic order, rather than turning into its enemy. They must be inside the tent, otherwise the tent may collapse. I believe that this is in the best interest of Israel, too. That’s why my friends and I favor Fatah-Hamas reconciliation and advocate direct negotiations between Israel and Hamas, and not only for prisoner exchanges.

Our media are outraged: the interim Prime Minister of Libya has announced that Islamic law – the sharia – will guide the enactment of new laws in his country. It seems our journalists are ignorant of the existence of an Israeli law that says that if there are legal questions for which there are no ready answers, the religious Jewish law – the Halakha – will fill the void. Moreover, there is a new bill before the Knesset that states unequivocally that the Halakha will decide legal disputes.

The outcome of the Tunisian elections was, to my mind, very positive. As expected, the moderate Islamic party won a plurality, but not a majority. It must form a coalition with secular parties and is willing to do so. These parties, totally new and practically unknown, need time to establish their identity and structure.

To add a personal note, Rachel and I went to Tunisia many times to meet Yasser Arafat, and rather liked the people. We were especially taken by the many men we saw in the streets wearing a jasmine flower behind the ear. No wonder that such people could make an almost bloodless “jasmine revolution”.

If elections in other Arab countries follow this pattern, as seems probable, it will be all for the best.

THE OBAMA administration was clever enough to jump on the bandwagon of the Arab revolutions, though at the very last moment. We Israelis did not have this sense. Our Islamophobia has caused us to miss a golden opportunity for a new image among the young Arab revolutionaries.

Instead, we contrast our goodness with the barbarism of the Libyans, who have once again shown the true nature of the jungle surrounding our villa.

The Balkans will only become a permanently stable region when all the countries that comprised the former Yugoslavia are accepted as members of the European Union, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister told the General Assembly today.

Speaking during the Assembly’s annual general debate, Nickolay Mladenov – whose country became an EU member in 2007 – noted that the EU “was created to make war impossible in a continent that has seen at least a century of conflicts.

“Europe shall not be whole and complete until our neighbours in the Balkans are part of our Union,” adding that only membership will “make war impossible.”

The Balkans endured a series of vicious conflicts during the 1990s after the break-up of the former Yugoslavia, and only one country to have emerged from that State – Slovenia – is now a member of the EU.

Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Montenegro are official candidate countries, while Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia have been recognized as potential candidates. The EU currently has 27 member countries.

Mr. Mladenov said Bulgaria would work to promote regional cooperation and neighbourly relations across the Balkans, and particularly encourage the EU-facilitated dialogue between Serbia and Kosovo.

“Bulgaria welcomes the pragmatic approach taken by both Kosovo and Serbia during their first meetings. It is important that they build on this momentum and continue to engage in a constructive and pragmatic manner,” he added.

“All must show restraint and prevent the build-up of tension. This is vital for the security, prosperity and – ultimately – for the European perspective of the region.”

* * *

AT UN, HUNGARY AND CZECH REPUBLIC OFFER ADVICE TO ARAB STATES ON DEMOCRATIC TRANSITIONS

Transitioning to democracy brings with it challenges and must be an inclusive and locally-driven process, the leaders of Hungary and the Czech Republic told the General Assembly today as they drew lessons from their own experiences two decades ago to apply to the current situations in North Africa and the Middle East.

“I want to stress that systemic change cannot be agreed upon or pre-arranged at international conferences, and that it cannot be mediated of passively ‘acquired’ as a foreign investment,” Czech President Václav Klaus said in his address to the Assembly’s annual general debate.

“It is a domestic task and it is a sequence of policies – not a once-for-all policy change.”

Mr. Klaus also said the democratic transitions in countries such as Tunisia, Libya and Egypt should lead to increased trade with Europe to create prosperity and stability in the region.

Hungarian President Pál Schmitt cautioned the emerging democracies that there will be challenges in establishing new structures of power, drafting new constitutions and ensuring credible elections.

“The Hungarian society has, on the one hand, already met successfully many of these challenges and, on the other hand, has also made some avoidable mistakes. We therefore feel equipped to share our experience and offer a substantive toolkit for good governance and democratic change.”

Separately, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today discussed a range of issues, including developments in the Middle East and the economic situation in the European Union, with the President of Poland, Bronislaw Komorowski, when the two met on the margins of the General Assembly’s general debate.

Poland holds the current Presidency of the Council of the European Union and Mr. Ban and Mr. Komorowski also discussed UN-EU relations.

Be blessed – But this is a charade. You cannot be part of  that building if you are a proponent of true democracy – there surely will be some government that you will step on their toes and they are given the power to lock you out by using their appointed UN officials that get the job on a quota basis. The accreditation of NGOs and Press reporters is thus heavily censored, and talk of democracy is nothing but a charade. All what they suggest is –  Just join the choir in an act of self-love.

————–

Each year the International Day of Peace is observed around the world on 21 September. Conveniently so timed to the opening of the UN General Assembly.  The General Assembly has declared this as a day devoted to strengthening the ideals of peace, both within and among all nations and peoples – this according to language borrowed from the UN charter..

This year – on its 30th anniversary – the Day’s theme is “Peace and Democracy: make your voice heard”.

The Preamble to the United Nations Charter states that the Organization was founded to prevent and resolve international conflicts and help build a culture of peace in the world.

Peace and democracy are inextricably linked. Together, they form a partnership that promotes the well-being of all. Embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, democracy supports an environment for a host of political rights and civil liberties.

In line with the Day’s theme, something profoundly remarkable is happening in the world. Young women and men everywhere are demonstrating the power of solidarity by reaching out and rallying together for the common goal of dignity and human rights. This powerful force brings with it the potential to create a peaceful and democratic future. Add your voice!

There are many ways to participate in democratic practices, including taking part in dialogue on constitutional processes, advocating for civil society empowerment, joining the struggle for gender equality and against discrimination, engaging in civic education and promoting voter registration.

The International Day of Peace offers people globally, a shared date to organize events and undertake deeds celebrating the importance of peace and democracy in realistic and useful ways.

THIS YEAR IS INDEED A SPECIAL YEAR THANKS TO THE REMOVAL OF DICTATORS IN THE ARAB WORLD – BUT A YEAR OF  EVEN GREATER DANGERS WHEN WATCHING MOBS CONFUSE DEMOCRACY WITH NEW FORMS OF DESPOTISM. A TRUELY DEMOCRATIC UN COULD HAVE HELPED – BUT WE WILL BE REMISS IF THINKING THAT THIS UN CAN FILL THE NEED.

The Deputy Prime Minister, just back from his own vacation in Spain, and taking over the reigns from David Cameron who left on vacation himself, has given a speech on the Arab Spring this morning at the British Council, London. The full text of the speech is below:

Today I want to talk more broadly about the Arab Spring. But, before I do, I’d like to pause on the dramatic events in Libya overnight. The advances made by the Free Libya Forces in Tripoli would have been unthinkable just a few months ago. Unimaginable, even, for the generations of young Libyans who have never known a world without Qadhafi. Now, that world is within their reach. The momentum for change is breathtaking and, for the cynics who said change wasn’t possible, who had written off the Libyan uprising, written off the Arab Spring, clearly, they were wrong. The movement for freedom hasn’t been stamped out. It’s alive and kicking, and it’s here to stay.

So today I want to be absolutely clear: The UK stands shoulder to shoulder with the millions of citizens across the Arab world, who are looking to open up their societies, looking for a better life.

I want to start by taking stock of where we are. For many of these movements, the future is uncertain, but the Arab Spring is being driven by forces that will not go away: youth, technology, the need for economic reform. I then want to explain why supporting these movements is in the UK’s clear self-interest, because of our values, but also our prosperity and security too. Finally, I will set out the core elements of that support.

One: as events continue to unfold in Libya, we remain determined to help the Libyan people build a country that is safe, free and fair.

Two: we’re using our influence to help forge a new partnership between the international community and the region. One that is better at securing reform.

Three: we’re providing practical help to reforming states, as they put in place the building blocks for more open and inclusive societies.

So, what has become of the Arab Spring, nine months since it began? The answer depends on where you look. Tunisia and Egypt are tantalisingly close to new, democratically-elected governments. But, in both, there are immediate concerns about delivering elections in time and legitimate in the eyes of the people. Elsewhere in North Africa and the Gulf, we are witnessing more gradual change, at varying speeds. Time will tell whether it will meet people’s expectations. And, of course, the world continues to watch with hope as Free Libya Forces make important gains as Qadhafi’s fate closes in on him and the Libyan people find themselves on the cusp of freedom. But, it is also true that, in other places, developments are less encouraging. An urgent need for reform in Bahrain, for example. Stalemate in Yemen. And, in Syria, where a single family continues to wage war on an entire nation.

The UK welcomes the growing international condemnation of Assad’s regime. Yesterday we heard him wheel out the same, well-worn promises of reform. We take no reassurance from that. This is a man who has lied endlessly, broken his promises repeatedly, hurt his own people and now his time is up. Assad has burnt his bridges with the Turkish Government. Russia and China are less inclined to protect him at the UN. Arab countries have withdrawn their Ambassadors and made clear their horror at the bloodshed. The US and EU have called for his departure. And the UK is leading efforts to agree a new round of EU sanctions, targeting those at the top, those directing the violence, while minimising the impact on ordinary citizens.

We are clear: we want the violence to stop. Prisoners of conscience to be released. The UN to have complete freedom to assess the humanitarian situation. And, for the sake of the Syrian people, it’s time for Assad to go. He is as irrelevant to Syria’s future as Qadhafi is to Libya’s.

So the picture is very mixed and there is uncertainty over where things will go next. Many similarities underpin the uprisings, but these societies differ enormously too. Their wealth, traditions, institutions. The role of faith in society, of sect, tribe, nationality. The priorities of their people. The resistance from their elites. Different states were alwaysgoing to move at a different pace, and in different ways. Oppressive regimes were never going to tumble like dominoes. Nor were they going to change their ways overnight.

But, while we must temper optimism with realism, equally, we must be wary of those who preach a counsel of despair. The direction of travel is set. The fundamental forces driving these changes are here to stay. Youth. Technology. A lack of opportunity and inclusion. Factors which have collided to create citizens who want more, who know more, who aspire to more, but who are denied it at every turn. Time is on their side. They – you – will not give up.

First, consider the demographics. Young people ignited the Arab Spring. Traditional political groups only joined later on. We shouldn’t be surprised by that. Two thirds of the region’s population are under 24. They are better educated than their parents, healthier, more connected to the global community, more exposed to modern consumerism, and, with it, a sense of personal choice. They know they have a right to be heard. They know they deserve jobs and opportunities. And – most importantly – they now know that change is possible.

Just as the reformers of my generation were driven by historic scenes of the Berlin Wall coming down, these young men and women will never forget those images of triumph in Tahrir Square. Or, now, the pictures of Libyans coming together in Maydan Al Shuhadaa in Tripoli, renamed by the Libyan people last night. The genie is out of the bottle. Eventually, one way or another, their governments will have to make space for their demands.

Another driver is, of course, technology. A lot of ink has been spilt on the role of the internet in helping protesters mobilise, I don’t need to repeat that here. But it is worth remembering that it wasn’t just new media that facilitated these events. Television was also hugely important. Rolling, 24-hour news creates a kind of real-time empathy between people, a sense of solidarity between individuals and communities, even when they are thousands of miles apart. Encouraging a fearlessness among protesters that should give all oppressive regimes cause for concern.

Then there’s economic grievance. Gallup has done some extremely useful research on this, which we will hear more about later. Put simply, many citizens in Arab countries are frustrated at the limited economic opportunities open to them.  The region’s economies have grown well – often at 5 or 6 per cent a year. But huge swathes of the population have been excluded from the benefits of growth.  Unemployment is high – up to 25 per cent among young people.  Wages are low and living costs are on the rise.

There is also a problem of underemployment, where individuals are unable to capitalise on their skills and talents because workplaces are dominated by patronage and nepotism. Add to that indignation at crony capitalism, the sight of elites rampantly enriching themselves while they simultaneously squander the nation’s assets and the result is a deep-rooted sense of injustice.

The only way to diffuse that sense of injustice is by improving people’s material circumstances – helping these economies reach their potential, ensuring they generate growth for all. But the only way to do that is through economic and political reform. Changes to governances; policies to boost private enterprise; education reform, so there is more vocational training; more focus on the skills needed in the modern jobs market; trade liberalisation, opening up trade within the region, where integration is low, as well as outside of it.

These are the steps to enduring prosperity and stability. Mubarak didn’t understand that. Nor did Ben Ali. And nor do Qadhafi or Assad. And, if we are honest, the UK hasn’t always got this right. We attended to these autocrats in the name of stability, accepting their corruption and economic mismanagement as its necessary price and satisfying ourselves with false promises and cosmetic reform. We have learnt from those mistakes. There can be no lasting peace, no long-term success, without fundamental reform.

Why, then, does any of this matter to the UK?

First and foremost, because we believe in the same things these activists are fighting for: freedom, self-determination, human rights, the chance for people who work hard to succeed. Those are the values of the open society, where power is dispersed, government is representative, opportunity is shared. Values which are sometimes referred to as “Western values”, which is historically inaccurate, for a start. While much of Europe had still to emerge from the Dark Ages, it was the Baghdad of Haroun al-Rashid that saw a flowering of free religious debate and an openness to learning from non-Muslim sources. This year has proved that so-called Western values, free speech, the rule of law, pluralism, are the aspirations of people everywhere.

The UK stands by all who strive for them.

But – and I make no apology for the self-interest here – we also care because stability and prosperity over there feed directly into jobs and security over here. Right now, there are over 150,000 British citizens living and working in North Africa and the Middle East and thousands of British companies operating there. We exported around £24.5 billion worth of goods and services to the region last year alone, more than to India and China combined. Even when you take out the Gulf States, trade with the rest of the region is strong and growing. So this is an extremely important market for us particularly when we are getting our own economy back on track.

The global economy is still very much governed by the price of oil. These states hold 59% of the world’s reserves, along with 36% of production. Even a small risk of disruption to that supply can spook the markets, pushing up the price of oil and creating a headwind for global economic growth. That’s exactly what happened after the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, when oil prices hit a near-record high.

The Arab Spring also matters to us in terms of our security. We know that terrorists thrive on lawlessness and instability, many people might be surprised to hear that, right now, there is more chance of an Al Qaeda attack being planned and carried out from Yemen than Afghanistan. Because of continuing political deadlock, Yemen, already the poorest country in the region is being pushed deeper into state failure, deeper into humanitarian crisis, creating a breeding ground for extremists who pose a threat to our safety. That situation cannot be allowed to continue – not in Yemen or anywhere else.

On security more broadly, North African and Middle Eastern states are also essential to preventing Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons or meddling in its neighbours affairs. And to finding a lasting, two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict, the importance of which has been underlined by events over recent days. The peace process is already extremely fragile. Continuing unrest in the Arab world only adds to that.

So the UK has every reason to support the Arab Spring. We’re doing so in three key ways.  One, supporting Libya as it moves to a stable, prosperous future. Two, using our influence to create a new international partnership with the region better at encouraging reform. Three, by providing practical help to nations in transition.

The decision to support military intervention in Libya was not one the UK took lightly. Particularly not by those of us who opposed the invasion of Iraq, but, working with the international community to implement UN resolutions 1970 and 1973 was, and remains, necessary, legal and right. We went to Libya with a clear humanitarian mandate and tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives have been saved since. But, we also knew that inaction would have threatened the Arab Spring as a whole.

In those early months, had Qadhafi been allowed to massacre protesters in Benghazi, what message would that have sent to protesters in Manama? Sanaa? Damascus? And, today, as the Colonel’s regime crumbles around him, as the people of Libya fight to take back their country, what message does that send to other dictators who ignore their people’s demands?

Clearly the situation in Libya is changing by the moment. Today’s scenes should give heart to all of those struggling for their freedom. But – and this is where we learn the lesson from Iraq – Qadhafi’s departure will not be the end. It will be the beginning and we should not underestimate the challenges ahead.

The National Transition Council has articulated a vision for a strong, stable, post- Qadafi Libya, setting out a roadmap for the government of Libya from now until the first set of legislative elections. They have said the right things about protecting national institutions, security for all and an inclusive political process.  And the UK, alongside the UN, will do everything we can to support that process, helping Libya draw a line under decades of repression, helping deliver peace and stability that last.

Two, a new partnership between the international community and the region. Inclusive and effective, built on give and take. Where we offer Arab states a better deal – the support they really need but we expect them to listen to their people in return. That is the smart way for the international community to pool its influence.

The G8 launched the Deauville Partnership earlier this year to support reform in the region and ensure international institutions are working together. Important regional players are fully involved: Turkey for example, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates. Their involvement and experiences will be indispensible in making this partnership work and Europe has to be smarter too.  Europe has deep ties to its southern neighbours: a shared history, cultural bonds, trade and aid, but the EU needs to make more of those to encourage political and economic reform.

The UK has been very active in redesigning the EU’s Neighbourhood policy. The new policy will offer our neighbours substantial additional financial assistance – through aid and European Bank lending. But, more importantly, the EU has committed to actions that will allow for greater economic integration. The access to markets that we know can deliver jobs and opportunities, through trade concessions in the short term and free trade agreements in the long term. But – and this is crucial – this access to markets will depend on the ability to demonstrate clear progress on reform. Where progress cannot be demonstrated, support will be withdrawn.

Three, practical support for reforming nations. It is extremely important that transitions are as swift and as smooth as possible. Successful revolutions may change the world overnight. But, in many ways, it’s the morning after that the real work begins. So the UK is working with organisations like the British Council and Westminster Foundation for Democracy to support these communities with the nuts and bolts of transition in Egypt, Tunisia and elsewhere. Our Arab Partnership Fund will support a range of political projects, from assisting fledgling movements as they turn into organised political parties, to setting up parliamentary procedures for new legislatures, putting in place processes to prevent corruption, staffing projects to engage women and other marginalised groups, giving technical assistance to help replace state media monopolies with a plural press and helping register huge numbers of people who have never voted before.

On the economic front, we’re looking at schemes that support private sector growth, boost entrepreneurship, tackle youth unemployment, increase trade opportunities, stimulate public-private partnerships. All the areas we can offer the most help, and make the biggest difference. We’ve committed resources to this – £110m over the next four years with £20m now set aside specifically for Libya. And of course the UK, collectively with the EU, has committed an additional 1bn Euros to the region, with the European Investment Bank increasing its lending by a further billion on top of this.

Many of the programmes we are supporting are technical, bureaucratic, but don’t ever underestimate this stage of reform. This is when you lock in a revolution. This is when you turn the hopes and dreams of millions of citizens into the institutions and practices of a well-functioning state.

So, to sum up:

Across North Africa and the Middle East, the UK will continue to support the will of the people. We believe in their self-determination, we share their values. And we know that reform is the route to stability and prosperity there and that, in turn, helps jobs and security here.

The UK took a lead in mobilising international support for action to help secure change in Libya and we will continue to stand up for the aspirations of citizens across the Arab world. We are helping forge a new, more effective international partnership with the region and we will continue to provide practical help to states in transition.

We’ll need to keep our approach under continual review. The situation is fast-changing. But one thing I can say with certainty: to every citizen in this part of the world demanding greater freedom, to every young man and women in search of a better life, to every society determined to open itself up, the path to political freedom and economic opportunity is long, but you are on the right side of history. The UK stands with you.

Thank you.

By committing forces in Libya on behalf of the rebels based in Cyrenaica without quite knowing who they are, what they believe in, or what kind of government they would institute on achieving power, the NATO allies did something unprecedented in March 2011.

This irresponsible undertaking means that Western forces are engaged in a weird roll of the dice: Mu’ammar al-Qaddafi may be a monster but at least he is an isolated one who can inflict relatively little damage on American interests. The Cyrenaica crowd could be Islamist, in which case it might inflict much more damage on those interests.

As we know so little, I propose an unconventional policy which makes sense in these unusual circumstances: Not seek to drive Qaddafi from power but let him survive as ruler of Tripolitania (and Fezzan), while keeping him out of Cyrenaica. In other words, let there be two Libyas, one based in Tripoli, one in Benghazi, one ruled by Qaddafi and one by his opponents.

Over time, we can see which is the better of the two. When that judgment has been reached, we can help the better Libya defeat the worse one and assist it to take over the whole country.

Again, I acknowledge that this is an abnormal policy, not to speak of one directly opposed to the current U.S. policy of dispatching Qaddafi, but NATO’s incompetent, amateurish, emotional, and non-strategic policy does push one in an abnormal direction.

THIS FROM:

What’s the Goal in Libya?

by Daniel Pipes
June 17, 2011
Cross-posted from National Review Online

www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/06/what-the-goal-in-libya

================================================

The issue of the legality of the US involvement in Libya gets more sticky by the day with those invoking the WAR POWERS ACT OF 1973 www.thecre.com/fedlaw/legal22/warpow.htm

Please see more of it at: http://www.sustainabilitank.info/?p=20440


The two days Vienna Europe to the Caucasus and Central Asia World Economic Forum, that opened officially Wednesday June 8th, discussed Energy and the Arab Spring.